What E-E-A-T Is
Experience + Expertise + Authoritativeness + Trustworthiness. Google's Quality Rater Guidelines define these four dimensions as the primary assessment framework for page quality. Quality raters do not directly change rankings, but their evaluations train the algorithms that do.
Note: This skill covers dimensional scoring only. For the full pipeline including intake questionnaire and HCU audit, use eeat-audit.
The Four Dimensions (Scoring Guide)
Experience (1-10)
Does the content demonstrate that the author has FIRST-HAND, PRACTICAL experience with the topic?
| Score | Evidence | Red Flag | |-------|---------|----------| | 9-10 | Multiple specific examples, detailed case studies, clear firsthand knowledge | | | 7-8 | Some specific examples, practical experience evident | | | 5-6 | Generic examples, could be researched rather than lived | | | 3-4 | Minimal experiential proof, mostly theoretical | | | 1-2 | No evidence of firsthand experience | Zero experiential proof |
Experience markers that raise score:
- First-person narrative ("When I replaced the roof on our Tampa warehouse in 2024...")
- Specific numeric outcomes ("reduced leak calls by 80%")
- Named projects, clients (with permission), or locations
- Photos of actual work performed
- Before/after specifics
Expertise (1-10)
Does the content demonstrate deep KNOWLEDGE of the topic?
| Score | Evidence | |-------|---------| | 9-10 | Deep technical knowledge, addresses edge cases, expert-level insights | | 7-8 | Solid understanding, correct terminology, useful depth | | 5-6 | Adequate coverage, some depth, mostly accurate | | 3-4 | Surface-level, could be written by anyone with basic research | | 1-2 | Thin content, factual errors, no demonstrated expertise |
Authoritativeness (1-10)
Is the AUTHOR recognized as an authority on this topic?
| Score | Evidence | |-------|---------| | 9-10 | Clear author credentials, multiple authoritative citations, industry recognition | | 7-8 | Author identified with relevant background, some authoritative sources | | 5-6 | Basic author info, limited external validation | | 3-4 | No clear author, few or no credible sources | | 1-2 | Anonymous content, no citations |
Authority signals:
- Author bio with: name, title, license number, years of experience, certifications
- External links to authoritative sources (industry associations, government data, academic)
- Author's other published work linked
- Professional association membership visible
Trustworthiness (1-10)
Can users VERIFY the claims and trust the source?
| Score | Evidence | |-------|---------| | 9-10 | Clear contact info, supported claims, transparent methodology, trust badges | | 7-8 | Contact available, most claims supported | | 5-6 | Some contact info, mixed claim support | | 3-4 | Limited contact, unsupported claims | | 1-2 | No contact, unverifiable claims |
Trust signals:
- Business name + address + phone on every page
- Privacy policy and terms of service accessible
- SSL/HTTPS throughout
- BBB accreditation, professional license number visible
- Return/guarantee policy visible on transactional pages
Scoring Benchmarks
Total E-E-A-T Score: /40
| Score | Rating | Action | |-------|--------|--------| | 35-40 | Excellent | Minor optimizations only | | 28-34 | Good | Targeted improvements | | 20-27 | Fair | Significant work needed | | 12-19 | Poor | Major revision required | | 4-11 | Very Poor | Complete rewrite recommended |
Output Format
Deliver E-E-A-T analysis as:
E-E-A-T Score: [X]/40
EXPERIENCE: [X]/10
Evidence found: [specific evidence cited]
Red flags: [if any]
Priority fix: [specific action]
EXPERTISE: [X]/10
Evidence found: [specific evidence cited]
Red flags: [if any]
Priority fix: [specific action]
AUTHORITATIVENESS: [X]/10
Evidence found: [specific evidence cited]
Red flags: [if any]
Priority fix: [specific action]
TRUSTWORTHINESS: [X]/10
Evidence found: [specific evidence cited]
Red flags: [if any]
Priority fix: [specific action]
TOP 3 FIXES (ordered by impact):
1. [action]
2. [action]
3. [action]
GEO Score Addendum
When AI citation eligibility matters, append GEO Score alongside E-E-A-T:
GEO Score (0-100): Measures AI extraction potential across Contextual Clarity, Organization, Referenceability, and Exclusivity.
Combined: E-E-A-T: X/40 | GEO: X/100
Cross-References
eeat-audit— full pipeline including intake questionnaire and HCU auditeeat-factor-extractor— automated extraction of E-E-A-T signals from any URLgoogle-update-proofing— broader update-proofing using E-E-A-T signalspanda-quality-score-audit— Panda quality scoring (separate patent-based framework)
#seo-sop #seo #eeat #content-quality #quality-raters #trust